get_series

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned (patch state, delegate, archived flag) but does not explicitly mention side effects, error conditions, or idempotency. Since it is a get operation, the description is adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return data and usage context. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error handling), but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's role.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the only parameter (series_id), and the description does not explain this parameter at all. The parameter's meaning is entirely left to inference from the parameter name and tool name, which is insufficient for an AI agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'series with every patch's state, delegate, and archived flag', clearly stating what the tool returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'whole patchset', implying it is for retrieving a complete series after finding by message ID.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use this after find_by_msgid to see the whole patchset at once,' providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. This directly references a sibling tool and explains the appropriate workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.